search for: osh

...hink* I vaguely remember that sh seemed to be more capable than > I remembered. If you like to check what the Bourne Shell did support in the late 1980s, I recommend you to fetch recent Schily tools from: https://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/ compile and install and test "osh". This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been added with Svr4: - multibyte character support. In the 1980s, the Bourne Shell was just 8-bit clean. - job-control. If you do not call "jsh", or if you switch off jobcontrol via "set +m" i...

...; > coherent stuff. > > > > Does outer coherent imply inner coherent? > > > > > the *mb() primitives cover both. > > I do not think so, but lets add Will, he dreams this stuff. Right, and I don't sleep well these days. Anyway, the outer-shareable domain (osh) is a superset of the inner-shareable domain (ish). The inner-shareable domain contains the CPUs and any peripherals that you and I would call "cache coherent". The outer-shareable domain extends this to cover a strange set of "less cache coherent" devices, which we would just c...

...; > coherent stuff. > > > > Does outer coherent imply inner coherent? > > > > > the *mb() primitives cover both. > > I do not think so, but lets add Will, he dreams this stuff. Right, and I don't sleep well these days. Anyway, the outer-shareable domain (osh) is a superset of the inner-shareable domain (ish). The inner-shareable domain contains the CPUs and any peripherals that you and I would call "cache coherent". The outer-shareable domain extends this to cover a strange set of "less cache coherent" devices, which we would just c...

...r-usa.com> wrote: > On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been > > added with Svr4: > > Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell? > > http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html Heirloom did make quick and dirty ports and then stopped working. Heirloom e.g. did make the same attempt to port to platforms that may cause problems with own malloc() implemenetaions: - add a private malloc for...

I'm not sure where to put in my $.02 on this, but I think the best thing to do is pick a different name; I like "fresh". my $.02 of course, Mark

...hily tools to show people how the first shell with an interactive editable history did look like. Bsh != Bourne Shell. It was named bsh because I implemented my history editor at H. Berthold AG while working on a depanded page variant of UNOS. > 2. Many of those who might be interested in your osh are already well served by the Ancient Unix V7 + SIMH combination: > > http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/ancient/ > > You are left with the subset of people who want to run something other than the shells that come with their OS, and who want it to run natively. > > I shoul...

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote: > Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular > Unix, using ksh by default? Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell. Solaris included /bin/ksh as part of the core distribution (ksh88 was a part of the SVr4 specification) and so many scripts were written with #!/bin/ksh at

On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been > added with Svr4: Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell? http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html I see that you already wrote up the differences between osh and bosh in an earlier post. Is there a good reason why these comparisons are not on the Schily Tools web page already? :)

...g at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > Heirloom added support for uname -S and for some linux ulimit extensions but > then stopped working on the code after a few months Ah. I had no idea it was in a state of disrepair. >> I see that you already wrote up the differences between osh and bosh in an earlier post. Is there a good reason why these comparisons are not on the Schily Tools web page already? :) > > The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state. There is > no such maintained web page. I was referring to the summary on the SourceForg...

...If you tell me that I can download ?od?, I reply that I already have a functioning version of od, thank you very much. :) > > Bsh is mainly in schily tools to show people how the first shell with an > interactive editable history did look like. Bsh != Bourne Shell. Yes, I realize that osh is closer to the original Bourne shell. My point is that you can?t expect people to just know, without having been told, why they want bsh, or osh, bosh, or smake, or? Most of these tools compete with tools that are already in CentOS. If you want people to use these instead, you?re not going to...

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:02:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:26:29PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Note that virtio_mb() is weirdly inconsistent with virtio_[rw]mb() in > > > that they use dma_* ops for weak_barriers, while virtio_mb() uses > > > smp_mb(). > > > > It's a hack really. I think I'll clean it

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:02:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:26:29PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Note that virtio_mb() is weirdly inconsistent with virtio_[rw]mb() in > > > that they use dma_* ops for weak_barriers, while virtio_mb() uses > > > smp_mb(). > > > > It's a hack really. I think I'll clean it

virtio ring entries have exactly the acquire/release semantics: - reading used index acquires a ring entry from host - updating the available index releases it to host Thus when using weak barriers and building for SMP (as most people do), smp_load_acquire and smp_store_release will do exactly the right thing to synchronize with the host. In fact, QEMU already uses

virtio ring entries have exactly the acquire/release semantics: - reading used index acquires a ring entry from host - updating the available index releases it to host Thus when using weak barriers and building for SMP (as most people do), smp_load_acquire and smp_store_release will do exactly the right thing to synchronize with the host. In fact, QEMU already uses

...16 *p) > +{ > + if (!weak_barriers) { > + rmb(); > + return READ_ONCE(*p); > + } > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > + return smp_load_acquire(p); > +#else > + dma_rmb(); > + return READ_ONCE(*p); > +#endif > +} This too is wrong. Look for example at arm. dma_rmb() is dmb(osh), while the smp_mb() used by smp_load_acquire() is dmb(ish). They order completely different types of memory accesses. Also, load_acquire() is first load, then barrier, and an ACQUIRE barrier at that, not a READ barrier. So your #else branch should look something like: var = READ_ONCE(*p); dma...

forwarding this on... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Erik Turner" <erik@turner.org> > To: <flac-dev@lists.sourceforge.net> > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 10:49 AM > Subject: Re: [Flac-dev] success compiling and running under IRIX > > > All, > > There is a discussion going on in the OggVorbis mailing list > about replay gain.

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:38:25AM -0400, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it > became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license agreement > include payment, or was it just restrictive on distribution? In 1990, when I started using ksh88, it was totally commercial. Binaries were $$$ and source was

Hello All, I am having an issue with AAF and sorting results of a search. Right now, I have results being split onto pages of 10. The results are being sorted alphabetically, but not across multiple pages - it''s just sorting the 10 it pulls down on each page. I noticed another post from April regarding this same issue (http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/62993#66934) where the issue was